United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
EPA/54(V4-90/048
September 1990
National
Priorities
List Sites:
WEST VIRGINIA
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
EPA/540/4-90/048
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
West Virginia
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, B.C. 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes or the National
Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600
-------
PAGE
INTRODUCTION: _
A Brief Overview........;..:^......,.>.....,..<...........>..j;.v..:-rt...::.....,.iii
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Lip Sites vii
How To:
Using the State Volume xvii
NPL SITES:
A State Overview xxi
THE NPL PROGRESS REPORT xxiii
NPL: Site Fact Sheets 1
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets G-1
-------
ii
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
\ s the 1970s came to a
"M close, a series of head-
^ line stories gave
Americans a look at the
dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the
land. First there was New
York's Love Canal. Hazard-
ous waste buried there over a
25-year period contaminated
streams and soil, and endan-
gered the health of nearby
residents. The result: evacu-
ation of several hundred
people. Then the leaking
barrels at the Valley of the
Drums in Kentucky attracted
public attention, as did the
dioxin tainted land and water
in Times Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human
health and the environment
were threatened, lives were
disrupted, property values
depreciated. It became in-
creasingly clear that there
were large numbers of serious
hazardous waste problems
that were falling through the
cracks of existing environ-
mental laws. The magnitude
of these emerging problems
moved Congress to enact the
Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA commonly
known as the Superfund
was the first Federal law
established to deal with the
dangers posed by the
Nation's hazardous waste
sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the
problem until EPA began the
process of site discovery and
site evaluation. Not hun-
dreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste
sites existed, and they pre-
sented the Nation with some
of the most complex pollution
problems it had ever faced.
In the 10 years since the
Superfund program began,
hazardous waste has surfaced
as a major environmental
concern in every part of the
United States. It wasn't just
the land that was contami-
nated by past disposal prac-
tices. Chemicals in the soil
were spreading into the
groundwater (a source of
drinking water for many) and
into streams, lakes, bays, and
wetlands. Toxic vapors
contaminated the air at some
sites, while at others improp-
erly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health
of the surrounding commu-
nity and the environment.
EPA Identified More than
1,200 Serious Sites
EPA has identified 1,236
hazardous waste sites as the
most serious in the Nation.
These sites comprise the
"National Priorities List":
sites targeted for cleanup
under the Superfund. But site
discoveries continue, and
EPA estimates that, while
some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list,
commonly called the NPL,
will continue to grow by ap-
proximately 100 sites per
year, reaching 2,100 sites by
the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL
CLEANUP EFFORT IS
MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the
program, Congress recog-
nized that the Federal govern-
ment could not and should
not address all environmental
problems stemming from past
disposal practices. Therefore,
the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list
of sites to target. Sites on the
NPL (1,236) are thus a rela-
111
-------
lively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
ous waste sites, but they do
comprise the most complex
and environmentally compel-
ling cases. EPA has logged
more than 32,000 sites on its
National hazardous waste
inventory, and assesses each
site within one year of being
logged. In fact, over 90 per-
cent of the sites on the inven-
tory have been assessed. Of
the assessed sites, 55 percent
have been found to require no
further Federal action because
they did not pose significant
human health or environ-
mental risks. The remaining
sites are undergoing further
assessment to determine if
long-term Federal cleanup
activities are appropriate.
EPA IS MAKING
PROGRESS ON SITE
CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund
program is to tackle immedi-
ate dangers first, and then
move through the progressive
steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public
health and the environment.
The Superfund responds
immediately to sites posing
imminent threats to human
health and the environment
at both NPL sites and sites
not on the NPL. The purpose
is to stabilize, prevent, or
temper the effects of a haz-
ardous release, or the threat
of one. These might include
tire fires or transportation
accidents involving the spill
of hazardous chemicals.
Because they reduce the
threat a site poses to human
health and the environment,
immediate cleanup actions
are an integral part of the
Superfund program.
Immediate response to immi-
nent threats is one of the
Superfund's most noted
achievements. Where immi-
nent threats to the public or
environment were evident,
EPA has completed or moni-
tored emergency actions that
attacked the most serious
threats to toxic exposure in
more than 1,800 cases.
The ultimate goal for a haz-
ardous waste site on the NPL
is a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that
presents a serious (but not an
imminent) threat to the public
or environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. In
the last four years, EPA has
aggressively accelerated its
efforts to. perform these long-
term cleanups of NPL sites.
More cleanups were started
in 1987, when the Superfund
law was amended, than in
any previous year. And in
1989 more sites than ever
reached the construction
stage of the Superfund
cleanup process. Indeed
construction starts increased
by over 200 percent between
late 1986 and 1989! Of the
sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 nearly half
have had construction
cleanup activity. In addition,
over 500 more sites are pres-
ently in the investigation
stage to determine the extent
of site contamination, and to
identify appropriate cleanup
remedies. Many other sites
with cleanup remedies se-
lected are poised for the start
of cleanup construction activ-
ity. Measuring success by
"progress through the
cleanup pipeline," EPA is
clearly gaining momentum.
EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
EPA has gained enough
experience in cleanup con-
struction to understand that
environmental protection
does not end when the rem-
edy is in place. Many com-
plex technologies like
those designed to clean up
groundwater must operate
for many years in order to
accomplish their objectives.
EPA's hazardous waste site
managers are committed to
proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy con-
structed. No matter who has
been delegated responsibility
for monitoring the cleanup
work, the EPA will assure
that the remedy is carefully
followed and that it continues
to do its job.
Likewise, EPA does not
abandon a site even after the
cleanup work is done. Every
-------
five years the Agency reviews
each site where residues from
hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public
and environmental health are
still being safeguarded. EPA
will correct any deficiencies
discovered and report to the
public annually on all five-
year reviews conducted that
year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also
depend upon local citizen
participation. EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and
deploy the experts, but the
Agency needs citizen input as
it makes choices for affected
communities.
Because the people in a
community with a Superfund
site will be those most di-
rectly affected by hazardous
waste problems.and cleanup
processes, EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in
cleanup decisions. Public in-
volvement and comment does
influence EPA cleanup plans
by providing valuable infor-
mation about site conditions,
community concerns and
preferences.
This State volume and the
companion National Over-
view volume provide general
Superfund background
information and descriptions
of activities at each State NPL
site. These volumes are
intended to clearly describe
what the problems are, what
EPA and others participating
in site cleanups are doing,
and how we as a Nation can
move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES
IN TANDEM
To understand the big picture
on hazardous waste cleanup,
citizens need to hear about
both environmental progress
across the country and the
cleanup accomplishments
closer to home. The public
should understand the chal-
lenges involved in hazardous
waste cleanup and the deci-
sions we must make as a
Nation in finding the best
solutions.
The National Overview
volume Superfund: Focus-
ing on the Nation at Large
accompanies this State vol-
ume. The National Overview
contains important informa-
tion to help you understand
the magnitude and challenges
facing the Superfund pro-
gram as well as an overview
of the National cleanup effort.
The sections describe the
nature of the hazardous
waste problem nationwide,
threats and contaminants at
NPL sites and their potential
effects on human health and
the environment, the Super-
fund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's
serious hazardous waste sites,
and the vital roles of the
various participants in the
cleanup process.
This State volume compiles
site summary fact sheets on
each State site being cleaned
up under the Superfund
program. These sites repre-
sent the most serious hazard-
ous waste problems in the
Nation, and require the most
complicated and costly site
solutions yet encountered.
Each State book gives a
"snapshot" of the conditions
and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site in
the State through the first half
of 1990. Conditions change as
our cleanup efforts continue,
so these site summaries will
be updated periodically to
include new information on
progress being made.
To help you understand the
cleanup accomplishments
made at these sites, this State
volume includes a description
of the process for site discov-
ery, threat evaluation and
long-term cleanup of Super-
fund sites. This description
How Does the Program
Work to Clean Up Sites?
will serve as a good reference
point from which to review
the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary also is
included at the back of the
book that defines key terms
used in the site fact sheets as
they apply to hazardous
waste management.
-------
VI
-------
The diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
waste sites have provided EPA with the challenge to
establish a consistent approach for evaluating and
cleaning up the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, EPA
had to step beyond its traditional role as a regulatory agency
to develop processes and guidelines for each step in these
technically complex site cleanups. EPA has established proce-
dures to coordinate the efforts of its Washington, D.C. Head-
quarters program offices and its front-line staff in 10 Regional
Offices with the State governments, contractors, and private
parties who are participating in site cleanup. An important
part of the process is that any time during cleanup, work can
be led by EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible for site con-
tamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evaluation of threat, and
long-term cleanup of Superfund sites is summarized in the
following pages. The phases of each of these steps are high-
lighted within the description. The flow diagram below pro-
vides a summary of this three step process.
STEP1
Discover site
and determine
whether an
emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether
a site is a serious
threat to public
health or
environment
STEPS
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
Emergency actions are performed Tvhenever needed in this three-step process
FIGURE 1
Although this State book provides a current "snapshot" of site progress made only by emer-
gency actions and long-term cleanup actions at Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads up to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the Nation. This discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this summary description.
vn
-------
'ow does 3BPA leaiai^
°- %s $ -.., "*;?" " %
rabotit potential ^ c ^X|
ihazardoiis waste;^ ;j;^
*sites? ,
feSL
r
tWhat happen^ If ^^
Is an
Manger?
|how doe$ E1PA, f
rdetermitte wtiat^i
*^ WMV4S s . ^ V %
^ cleanup
be taken?
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENCY
EVALUATION
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways. Information
comes from concerned citizens people may notice an odd
taste or foul odor in their drinking water, or see half-buried
leaking barrels; a hunter may come across a field where waste
was dumped illegally. Or there may be an explosion or fire
which alerts the State or local authorities to a problem. Rou-
tine investigations by State and local governments, and re-
quired reporting and inspection of facilities that generate,
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste also help keep EPA
informed about either actual or potential threats of hazardous
substance releases. All reported sites or spills are recorded in
the Superfund inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is reported, EPA
determines whether there is an emergency requiring an imme-
diate cleanup action. If there is, they act as quickly as possible
to remove or stabilize the imminent threat. These short-term
emergency actions range from building a fence around the
contaminated area to keep people away or temporarily relo-
cating residents until the danger is addressed, to providing
bottled water to residents while their local drinking water
supply is being cleaned up, or physically removing wastes for
safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at any time an imminent
threat or emergency warrants them for example, if leaking
barrels are found when cleanup crews start digging in the
ground or if samples of contaminated soils or air show that
there may be a threat of fire or explosion, an immediate action
is taken.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
Even after any imminent dangers are taken care of, in most
cases contamination may remain at the site. For example,
residents may have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contaminated well water.
But now it's time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
Vlll
-------
EPA may determine that there is no imminent danger from a
site, so now any long-term threats need to be evaluated. In
either case, a more comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious but not imminent danger,
and requires a long-term cleanup action. .. - - .
Once a site is discovered and any needed emergency actions
are taken, EPA or the State collects all available background
information not only from their own files, but also from local
records and U.S. Geological Survey maps. This information is
used to identify the site and to perform a preliminary assess-
ment of its potential hazards. This is a quick review of readily
available information to answer the questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be present?
How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread? !
How close is the nearest well, home, or natural resource
area like a wetland or animal sanctuary?
What may be harmed the land, water, air/people,
plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action because the prelimi-
nary assessment shows that they don't threaten public health
or the environment. But even in these cases, the sites remain
listed in the Superfund inventory for record keeping purposes
and future reference. Currently, there are more than 32,000
sites maintained in this inventory.
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional information to
evaluate its hazard potential. During this site inspection^ they
look for evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking drums
and dead or discolored vegetation. They may take some
samples of soil, well water, river water, and air. Inspectors
analyze the ways hazardous materials could be polluting the
environment such as runoff into nearby streams. They also
check to see if people (especially children) have access to the
site. . '
JL, <',:
'"?'
**w,
, -V- -\
%x^-;--
\ -
v1"*^ O, X% %%%
' , -.^ »". " *.'
- V ^
; assessment sliows:
; tlmt a setxqtfcs threat ^--r ;
%
next
Information collected during the site inspection is used to
identify the sites posing the most serious threats to human
health and the environment. This way EPA can meet the
How
IX
-------
-,* ,
rHow do people mm
=f o«t whether H|VK ;;li
rcoosidefs a sit "
r~ ' «*»*.;
^jxational priority for
^cleanup using *
? Superftmd
requirement that Congress gave them to use Superfund mo-
nies only on the worst hazardous waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, EPA developed the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS). The MRS is the scoring system EPA
uses to assess the relative threat from a release or a potential
release of hazardous substances from a site to surrounding
groundwater, surface water, air, and soil. A site score is based
on the likelihood a hazardous substance will be released from
the site, the toxicity and amount of hazardous substances at
the site, and the people and sensitive environments potentially
affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and environmental risk
scores are proposed to be added to EPA's National Priorities
List (NPL). That's why there are 1,236 sites are on the NPL,
but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund the Super-
fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
actions performed at any site, whether or not it's on the NPL.
The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
on the NPL by calling their Regional EPA office at the number
listed in this book.
The proposed NPL identifies sites that have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious problems
among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in
the U.S. In addition, a site will be added to the NPL if the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issues a
health advisory recommending that people be moved away
from the site. Updated at least once a year, it's only after
public comments are considered that these proposed worst
sites are officially added to the NPL.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in which sites will be
cleaned up. The order is influenced by the relative priority of
the site's health and environmental threats compared to other
sites, and such factors as State priorities, engineering capabili-
ties, and available technologies. Many States also have their
own list of sites that require cleanup; these often contain sites
not on the NPL that are scheduled to be cleaned up with State
money. And it should be said again that any emergency action
needed at a site can be performed by the Superfund whether
or not a site is on the NPL.
-------
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP ACTIONS
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on the NPL is a
permanent, long-term cleanup. Since every site presents a
unique set of challenges, there is no single all-purpose solu-
tion. So a five-phase "remedial response" process is used to
develop consistent and workable solutions to hazardous waste
problems across the Nation:
1. Investigate in detail the extent of the site contamination:
remedial investigation,
2. Study the range of possible cleanup remedies: feasibility
study,
3. Decide which remedy to use: Record of Decision or ROD,
4. Plan the remedy: remedial design, and
5. Carry out the remedy: remedial action.
This remedial response process is a long-term effort to provide
a permanent'solution to an environmental problem that
presents a serious, but not an imminent threat to the public or
environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are a combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) that
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site,
and identify and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These studies
may be conducted by EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, by private parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier, a remedial
investigation involves an examination of site data in order to
better define the problem. But the remedial investigation is
much more detailed and comprehensive than the initial site
inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described as a carefully
designed field study. It includes extensive sampling and
laboratory analyses to generate more precise data on the types
and quantities of wastes present at the site, the type of soil and
water drainage patterns, and specific human health and
environmental risks. The result is information that allows
EPA to select the cleanup strategy that is best suited to a
particular site or to determine that no cleanup is needed.
is added
NFL, w&at are,*
steps to ckamm?
. ~V " *" v. "" ""
"«n».
,""/
V. V,
-I
mfV
,J
' -M-X
/'
''-,-
i-
V-,
"* '
A
xi
-------
SUPERFUND
»">
Sa^_
r *
ow are cleanup
alternatives
^identified
uated?
\x
,.i
Placing a site on the NFL does not necessarily mean that
cleanup is needed. It is possible for a site to receive an HRS
score high enough to be added to the NPL, but not ultimately
require cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose of the
scoring process is to provide a preliminary and conservative
assessment of potential risk. During subsequent site investiga-
tions, the EPA may find either that there is no real threat or
that the site does not pose significant human health or envi-
ronmental risks.
EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, private parties
identify and analyze specific site cleanup needs based on the
extensive information collected during the remedial investiga-
tion. This analysis of cleanup alternatives is called .a. feasibility
study., ,
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly to the needs of
each individual site, more than one possible cleanup alterna-
tive is always considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health and the environ-
ment and comply with Federal and State laws, the advantages
and disadvantages of each cleanup alternative are carefully
compared. These comparisons are made to determine their
effectiveness in the short- and long-term, their use of perma-
nent treatment solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the remedy must be a
permanent solution and use treatment technologies to destroy
principal site contaminants. But remedies such as containing
the waste on site or removing the source of the problem (like
leaking barrels) are often considered effective. Often special
pilot studies are conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to clean up a site.
Therefore, the combined remedial investigation and feasibility
study can take between 10 and 30 months to complete, de-
pending on the size and complexity of the problem.
lDoes the public hawx> Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
a say in the filial <X " opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup plan. Their
decision? * f- concerris are carefully considered before a final decision is
* made.
Xll
-------
The results of the remedial investigation and feasibility study,
which also point out the recommended cleanup choice, are
published in a report for public review and comment. EPA or
the State encourages the public to review the information and
take an active role in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets
and announcements in local papers let the community know
where they can get copies of the study and other reference
documents concerning the site.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to comment on the
proposed cleanup plan after it is published. These comments
can either be written or given verbally at public meetings that
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither EPA nor the
State can select the final cleanup remedy without evaluating
and providing written answers to specific community com-
ments and concerns. This "responsiveness summary" is part
of EPA's write-up of the final remedy decision, called the
Record of Decision or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains the cleanup
remedy chosen and the reason it was selected. Since sites
frequently are large and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD
may be necessary for each contaminated resource or area of
the site. This may be necessary when contaminants have
spread into the soil, water and air, and affect such sensitive
areas as wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned up in
stages. This often means that a number of remedies using
different cleanup technologies are needed to clean up a single
site.
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried out, it must be 'x Jjj^eveiy cleaippp "
designed in detail to meet specific site needs. This stage of the '
cleanup is called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected remedy will be
engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may appear to be
like any other major construction project but, in fact, the likely
presence of combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures. Therefore, the
design of the remedy can take anywhere from 6 months to 2
years to complete. This blueprint for site cleanup includes not
only the details on every aspect of the construction work, but a
description of the types of hazardous wastes expected at the
xiu
, Piloted fa * site, does
' tt*e ~:"~" ' '-"""
emedy jieed to %
bile* ed too? _
-------
SUPERFUND
site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety,
regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
«. Once the design is >
* complete, how long I
J~~3oes it take to « 7
il actually clean up the I
I - site an<3 how muc|i ^
t does it cost? ^
The time and cost for performing the site cleanup - called the
remedial action are as varied as the remedies themselves.
In a few cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and decontaminate them an
action that takes limited time and money. In most cases,
however, a remedial action may involve different and expen-
sive measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or dredging
contaminated river bottoms can take several years of complex
engineering work before contamination is reduced to safe
levels. Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy described in
the ROD may need to be modified because of new contami-
nant information discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into account these
differences, a remedial cleanup action takes an average of 18
months to complete and costs an average of $26 million per
site.
1 Once the
- action is complete/ is
Lthe site automatically c
I "deleted" from tlie v ,
x > ^
\ \
* ^ ^
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And it's not
until public comments are taken into consideration that a site
can actually be deleted from the NPL. Deletions that have
occurred are included in the "Construction Complete" cate-
gory in the progress report found later in this book.
xiv
-------
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters should pay/' after a ,, - ^ -
site is placed on the NPL, the EPA makes a thorough effort to 5^ Wv1 ma*^
identify and find those responsible for causing contamination
problems at a site. Although EPA is willing to negotiate with
these private parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it has
the authority under the Superfund law to legally force those
potentially responsible for site hazards to take specific cleanup
actions. All work performed by these parties is closely guided
and monitored by EPA, and must meet the same standards
required for actions financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be lengthy, EPA may
decide to use Superfund monies to make sure a site is cleaned
up without unnecessary delay. For example, if a site presents
an imminent threat to public health and the environment, or if
conditions at a site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for causing site
contamination are liable under the law for repaying the money
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
pat*ies
Whenever possible, EPA and the Department of Justice use
their legal enforcement authorities to require responsible
parties to pay for site cleanups, thereby preserving the Super-
fund for emergency actions and sites where no responsible
parties can be identified.
KjS,
Jff fff
XV
-------
TAX
-------
The Site Fact Sheets
presented in this book
- are comprehensive
summaries that cover a broad
range of information. The
fact sheets describe hazard-
ous waste sites on the Na-
tional Priorities List (NPL)
and their locations, as well as
the conditions leading to their
listing ("Site Description").
They list the types of con-
taminants that have been dis-
covered and related threats to
public and ecological health
("Threats and Contami-
nants"). "Cleanup Ap-
proach" presents an overview
of the cleanup activities
completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets
conclude with a brief synop-
sis of how much progress has
been made on protecting
public health and the envi-
ronment. The summaries also
pinpoint other actions, such
as legal efforts to involve pol-
luters responsible for site
contamination-and commu-
nity concerns.
The following two pages
show a generic fact sheet and
briefly describes the informa-
tion under each section. The
square "icons" or symbols ac-
companying the text allow
the reader to see at a glance
which environmental re-
sources are affected and the
status of cleanup activities.
Icons in the Threats
and Contaminants
Section
Contaminated
Groundwater re-
sources in the vicinity
or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used
as a drinking water source.)
Contaminated Sur-
face Water and
Sediments on or near
the site. (These include lakes,
ponds, streams, and rivers.)
Contaminated Air in
the vicinity of the
site. (Pollutionis
usually periodic and involves
contaminated dust particles
or hazardous gas emissions.)
Contaminated Soil
and Sludges on or
near the site.
Threatened or
contaminated Envi-
ronmentally Sensi-
tive Areas in the vicinity of
the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas,
critical habitats.)
Icons in the Response
Action Status Section
]xlmtial Actions
have been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
Site Studies at the
site are planned or
underway.
Remedy Selected
indicates that site
investigations have
been concluded
and EPA has se-
lected a final cleanup remedy
for the site or part of the site.
Remedy Design
means that engi-
neers are prepar-
ing specifications
and drawings for the selected
cleanup technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing
indicates that the
selected cleanup
remedies for the
contaminated site or part
of the site are currently
underway.
a Cleanup Complete
shows that all
cleanup goals have
been achieved for
the contaminated site or part
of the site.
xvii
-------
Site Responsibility
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOOO
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Rnal, and
Deleted from the
NPL
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
Location
Threats and Contaminants
Environmental Progress
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to nearby residents and
the surrounding environment; progress towards cleaning up the site
and goals of the cleanup plan are given here.
XVUl
-------
WHAT THE FACT SHEETS CONTAIN
Site Description
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes
descriptions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have
contributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
Throughout the site description and other sections of the site summary, technical
or unfamiliar terms that are italicized are presented in the glossary at the end of
the book. Please refer to the glossary for more detailed explanation or definition
of the terms.
Threats and Contaminants
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding
environments arising from the site contamination are also described. Specific
contaminants and contaminant groupings are italicized and explained in more
detail in the glossary.
Cleanup Approach
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
Response Action Status
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean up
the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided into
separate phases depending on the complexity and required actions at the site.
Two major types of cleanup activities are often described: initial, immediate or
emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent threats to the
community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial phases directed at
final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy is presented in this
section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of the cleanup process
(initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the cleanup remedy,
engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway and completed cleanup)
are located in the margin next to each activity description.
Site Facts
Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by EPA to achieve
site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with the site
cleanup process are reported here.
XIX
-------
The fact sheets are arranged
in alphabetical order by site
name. Because site cleanup is
a dynamic and gradual
process, all site information is
accurate as of the date shown
on the bottom of each page.
Progress is always being
made at NPL sites, and EPA
will periodically update the
Site Fact Sheets to reflect
recent actions and publish
updated State volumes.
HOW CAN YOU USE
THIS STATE BOOK?
You can use this book to keep
informed about the sites that
concern you, particularly
ones close to home. EPA is
committed to involving the
public in the decisionmaking
process associated with
hazardous waste cleanup.
The Agency solicits input
from area residents in com-
munities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely
to be affected not only by
hazardous site conditions, but
also by the remedies that
combat them. Site cleanups
take many forms and can
affect communities in differ-
ent ways. Local traffic may
be rerouted, residents may be
relocated, temporary water
supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a
site can help citizens sift
through alternatives and
make decisions. To make
good choices, you must know
what the threats are and how
EPA intends to clean up the
site. You must understand
the cleanup alternatives being
proposed for site cleanup and
how residents may be af-
fected by each one. You also
need to have some idea of
how your community intends
to use the site in the future
and to know what the com-
munity can realistically
expect once the cleanup is
complete.
EPA wants to develop
cleanup methods that meet
community needs, but the
Agency can only take local
concerns into account if it
understands what they are.
Information must travel both
ways in order for cleanups to
be effective and satisfactory.
Please take this opportunity
to learn more, become in-
volved, and assure that
hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your
community's concerns.
xx
-------
NPL Sites in
State of
West Virginia
West Virginia is bordered by Pennsylvania and Maryland to the north, Virginia, Ken-
tucky, and Ohio to the west, and Virginia to the south and east. The State covers
24,232 square miles and consists of mountainous and hilly terrain. The Allegheny
Plateau covers the western two-thirds of the state. West Virginia experienced a 3.8
percent decrease in population during the 1980s and currently has approximately
1,876,000 residents, ranking 34th in U.S. populations. Principal State industries are
mining, mineral and chemical production, primary metals, and stone, clay, glass prod-
ucts, timber, and tourism. West Virginia manufactures plastic and hardwood products,
basic organic and inorganic chemicals, aluminum, steel, fabricated metal products, and
machinery.
How Many West Virginia Sites
Are on the NPL?
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
5
_Q
5
Cong. District 01
Cong. District 02
Cong. District 03
1 sites
2 sites
2 sites
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
5 -r
4_
7
34
2 --
1 --
Soil GW SW
Seds Solid &
Liquid
Contamination Area
Waste
Soil, Solid and Liquid Wastes:
Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and creosotes (organics).
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), dioxins, heavy
metals (inorganics), creosotes
(organics), pesiticides, and
asbestos.
Surface Water and Sediments:
Creosotes (organics), pesiticides,
and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs).
'Appear at 25% or more sites
State Overview
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process*?
Site
Studies
Remedy .
"Selected
f Remedy
" Design
Cleanup
Ongoing
Construction
Complete
Initial actions have been taken at 3 sites as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in West Virginia, providing specific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental
progress. Should you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
West Virginia Superfund Office
EPA Region III Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region III Superfund Public
Relations Office
(304) 348-2745
(215) 597-8132
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(215)597-9905
*Ctoanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview
XXII
-------
The NPL Progress Report
The following Progress Report lists the State sites currently on or deleted from the NPL,
and briefly summarizes the status of activities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the
chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow (*) which
indicates the current stage of cleanup at the site.
Large and complex sites are often organized into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and surface water pollution, or to clean up
different areas of a large site. In such cases, the chart portrays cleanup progress at the
site's most advanced stage, reflecting the status of site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
*- An arrow in the "Initial Response" category indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or is currently underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure to provide immediete relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent further contamination.
*- An arrow in the "Site Studies" category indicates that an investigation to determine the
nature and extent of the contamination at the site is currently ongoing or planned to
begin in 1991.
«* An arrow in the "Remedy Selection" category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the arrows in the Progress Report are
discontinued at the "Remedy Selection" step and resume in the final "Construction
Complete" category.
* An arrow at the "Remedial Design" stage indicates that engineers are currently
designing the technical specifications for the selected cleanup remedies and
technologies.
* An arrow marking the "Cleanup Ongoing" category means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and are currently underway.
*- A arrow in the "Construction Complete" category is used only when all phases of the
site cleanup plan have been performed and the EPA has determined that no additional
construction actions are required at the site. Some sites in this category may currently
be undergoing long-term pumping and treating of groundwater, operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the completed cleanup actions continue to
protect human health and the environment.
The sites are listed in alphabetical order. Further information on the activities and progress
at each site is given in the site "Fact Sheets" published in this volume.
xxiii
-------
Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in the State of West Virginia
Page She Name
County
NPL Date
Initial She Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
1
3
5
7
9
FIKE CHEMICAL
FOLLANSBEE SITE
LEETOWN PESTICIDE
ORDNANCE WORKS DISPOSAL AREAS
WEST VIRGINIA ORDNANCE
KANAWHA
BROOKE
JEFFERSON
MONONGALIA
MASON
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
09/01/83 * *- *- * "*
09/01/83 *-
09/01/83 * > * * *
06/01/86 >" "*" "*
09/01/83 "* "^ "* "*
XXIV
-------
-------
-------
FIKE CHEMICAL
WEST VIRGINIA
EPA ID# WVD047989207
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Kanawha/Putnam County
Nitro Industrial Complex in Nltro
Aliases:
Pike Chemical/Artel
Artel Site
Site Description
The 12-acre Fike Chemical site consists of Fike Chemicals, Inc. (now Artel Chemicals)
and the Cooperative Sewage Treatment, Inc. (CST) property, which is a facility designed
to treat Pike's stormwater and wastewater. The Fike plant was a small volume batch
formulator that specialized in the development of over 60 chemicals, custom chemical
processing, and specialty chemicals. The plant was purchased by Artel Chemical in
1986 and was subsequently abandoned in 1988. Site activities leading to
contamination include improper storage of drums containing hazardous substances, on-
site disposal of hazardous wastes through drum burial and unlined surface lagoons, and
tank storage of various chemical stock, products, and wastes. Treated water from the
CST property is discharged into the Kanawha River. Approximately 8,000 people live
within a 1-mile radius of the site, and an estimated 25,000 people live within a 10-mile
radius of the industrial complex.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with various volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and dioxins from the chemical plant's process wastes.
There is a potential for release of volatile chemicals into the air posing
risks if inhaled by people. Potential human health threats exist if
contaminated groundwater or soil is accidentally ingested. The Kanawha
River, located 2,000 feet east of the site, is threatened by contaminated
runoff from the plant.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
FIKE CHEMICAL
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in five stages: immediate actions and four long-term
remedial phases focusing on: (1) removal activities; (2) process plant equipment and
chemicals; (3) soil, groundwater, and buried containers; and (4) the wastewater
treatment facility.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1988, the parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination began to remove drums, tanks, and cylinders which were on
the surface of the soil. All of the chemicals and sources of contamination
were removed by 1990. These actions conducted by the EPA and the potentially
responsible parties have eliminated the immediate threat to the public and have
prevented further contamination from waste sources.
Removal Activities: Additonal removal activities are currently under way
and are expected to be completed in 1990. These activities include:
removal, off-site incineration and disposal of a tank containing 9,000 gallons
of contaminants; removal of drums and other containers to an EPA-
approved disposal facility; stabilization of lagoons; discharge of treated liquids to the
Kanawha River; and removal and disposal of cyanides.
Process Plant Equipment and Chemicals: A study addressing process
plant equipment and associated chemicals is planned to be completed in
1990. The EPA's final decision in selecting the remedy for the plant is also
expected to be completed in 1990.
Soil, Groundwater, and Buried Containers: A study to determine the
extent and nature of contamination and to identify alternatives for cleanup
addressing contaminated soils, groundwater, and buried containers is under
way. The study is expected to be completed by 1991.
Wastewater Treatment Facility: A study to determine the nature and
extent of contamination and to identify alternatives for cleanup addressing
the on-site wastewatertreatment facility is under way. The facility will be
dismantled once all contamination at the site has been addressed.
Site Facts: In November 1982, a Consent Decree was signed between the EPA and
Fike Chemicals.
Environmental Progress
By removing surface drums, tanks, and contaminant sources, the EPA and the
potentially responsible parties at the Fike Chemical site have eliminated immediate
threats to the surroundings while further studies and cleanup activities are undertaken.
-------
FOLLANSBEE SIT
WEST VIRGINIA
EPA IE># WVD'004336749
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Brooke County
1/4 mile from Follansbee
Aliases:
Hoppers Disposal Site Coketown
Koppers Chemical Co.
Koppers Industries, Inc.
Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel
Site Description
The Follansbee site covers 26 1/2 acres>on the Ohio River,in Follansbee. The site is an
operating coal tar processing plantowned by Koppers Industries, Inc. and consists of
process and storage facilities for the manufacture of coal tar by-products. The site was
acquired from ^American Tar Products, the operators the facility from 1914 to 1926. In
1929, a tar pitch plant was built, and in the 1930s, a caustic plant was installed. A
pencil pitch plant was built in 1962 to convert liquid pencil pitch to solid pitch. There
also is.a.wastewater-treatment plant on site. Contamination of the site is potentially
due to leaking.tanks, spills, surface impoundments, and poor operation cleanup
practices,- Numerous springs and^seeps are in the area. There are an estimated 5,875
people living within a 3-mile radius of,the site. Fifty private residential water supply
wells, are within the 3-mile radius, and there are public wells located 5 miles
downstream of the site that may be impacted by this site, although limited data exists.
The site is underlain by three aquifers, two of which are contaminated.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
,; Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Two of the three aquifers are contaminated "with polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as
benzene and toluene, and metals. Surface water springs and riverbank
seeps are contaminated with phenols. There is limited data on the
potential health threats caused by this site. Potential health risks may
exist from drinking or coming in direct contact with contaminated
groundwater and surface water. The Ohio River may be potentially
threatening those who use it for recreational purposes or as a source for
domestic water supplies. However, the impact of the site on the Ohio
River still needs to be assessed.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
FOLLANSBEE SITE
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA conducted a field investigation at the site in 1982,
resulting in its inclusion on the NPL In 1983, Koppers installed-a trench to
intercept contaminated groundwater. The groundwater is pumped to the
company's wastewater treatment facility. The company installed a second
pump in an attempt to prevent the contaminated groundwater from reaching the Ohio
River, as well as to control the groundwater flow. Based on the results from the alluvial
aquifer study conducted by Koppers, the EPA and Koppers agreed that an evaluation of
the site is needed to determine the extent of the contamination at the site and to
identify alternative technologies for cleanup. .Koppers has submitted a revised plan for
the schedule and objectives of the study to the EPA."'The investigation is'scheduled to
begin in 1990. t' ,
Site Facts: A Consent Decree was signed in August 1984, between the EPA, Koppers,
and Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, with the State of West Virginia as' intervenon. The
Consent Decree called for: (a) paving of Kopper's property; (b) installation of five
recovery wells on Kopper's property to eliminate seepage from Koppers to the
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel coal pits and to prevent future groundwater contamination;
and (c) Koppers to conduct an alluvial aquifer study.
Environmental Progress
Various measures have been taken to eliminate the spread of contamination in the
groundwater and to the Ohio River. The EPA has evaluated the site and determined
that conditions at the site do not pose an immediate threat while the investigations
leading to the selection of a final cleanup remedy are taking place.
-------
LEETOWN PE
WEST VIRGINIA
EPA ID# WVD980693402
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Jefferson County
8 miles south of Martinsburg
Alias:
Robinson Property
Site Description
Leetown Pesticide is a 1-acre site that contains 3 specific areas that have been
contaminated by the agricultural use of pesticides, pesticide disposal, and landfilling.
These three areas are the former Pesticide Pile Area, the former Jefferson Orchard
Mixing Area, and the former Crimm Orchard Packing Shed. The former pesticide pile
area allegedly resulted from the disposal of pesticide-contaminated debris from a 1975
chemical plant fire. Debris from the fire had been land farmed In a pasture as donated
"soil conditioners" to local farms. The pasture currently is being used for grazing
horses. The Jefferson Orchard mixing area was used to prepare pesticides during
active operation of the orchard. The orchard was abandoned during the late 1950s or
early 1960s. The land currently is being used for the production of silage corn. When
the Crimm Orchard was in operation, the packing shed was used to process the fruit
crop and to mix pesticides. Portions of the watershed areas for the Bell Spring Run and
Blue and Gray Spring Run are on the site. There are a number of private residences in
the area that rely on groundwater wells for drinking water. Approximately 140 people
live within 1 mile of the site. Land use in the area is predominantly'agricultural,
dedicated to pasture or forage crop production for dairy cattle operations.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
ZTA
March 1990
Threats and Contaminants
Sediment from Bell Creek Run and Link Spring Run contains detectable
concentrations of the pesticide DDT from former site activities. Soil in the
pesticide pile area is contaminated with DDT, arsenic, and lead. The
pesticide mixing area and Crimm Orchard Packing Shed soils are also
contaminated with DDT, along with endosulfan, another pesticide. Threats
to health include accidental ingestion, direct contact, or inhalation of
contaminated soil. Farmers who work the land and have frequent, direct
contact with soil or who inhale contaminated dust while plowing or tilling
the land are at particular risk. People may be exposed to contaminants by
eating the area crops or by consuming milk, meat, and other animal
products contaminated with pesticides.
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
-------
LEETOWN PESTICIDE
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase directed at cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1983, under supervision of the EPA and the State,
a party potentially responsible for the site contamination removed and
.......... disposed of a contaminated pile consisting of 160 cubic yards of waste and
soil. In 1988, a packing shed containing broken bags of DDT was dismantled. A soil cap
was placed over the shed area after contaminants were disposed of in a licensed
hazardous waste facility.
Entire Site: The final selection of cleanup technologies to address
contamination include: (1) excavation and consolidation of 3,600 cubic yards
of contaminated soil from the former Pesticide Pile Area, the former
- Pesticide Mixing Area, and the former Grimm Packing Shed Area; (2)
placement of contaminated soils in a specially constructed treatment bed; (3) removal
and off-site disposal of the contaminated flooring, a wooden spray wagon, and drums
of pesticide products in a hazardous waste facility; and (4) construction of a monitoring
well network, and construction of surface water diversion, sedimentation channels, and
diversion dikes. Cleanup activities are currently under way and the EPA continues to
monitor the groundwater. Cleanup activities are expected to be completed in 1991.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated materials from the Leetown Pesticide site, and the safe
destruction and subsequent capping of a packing shed have greatly reduced the
potential for exposure to contaminants at the site while cleanup activities are
completed.
-------
ORDNANCE WOR
DISPOSAL AR
WEST VIRGINIA
EPA ID# WVD000850404
Site Description
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Monongalia County
1 mile southeast of Morgantown
Alias:
Morgantown Ordinance Works
The 826-acre Ordnance Works Disposal Areas site is located on the west bank of the
Monongahela River. Many private companies have operated chemical manufactories
here since 1941, when E.I. Du Pontde Nemours began producing ammonia and
methanol for the Department of War. Between 1946 and 1958, Sharon Steel operated
a coke plant, Heyden Chemical operated an ammonia production facility, and Olin
Mathieson produced various organic chemicals on the site. The site was sold in 1962
to Morgantown Ordnance Works and, in 1982, to Morgantown Industrial Park.
Disposal of contaminated materials from the manufacturing process has been noted in
several locations including a landfill, a scraped area, a former lagoon area, three streams
traversing the site, and an industrial area in the northern portion of the site. Testing has
shown contamination of these spots with heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). The site is in the rural outskirts southwest of Morgantown; the
population within a mile is only 100. The Monongahela River supplies drinking water to
approximately 60,000 residents, and the water intake is less than a mile downstream of
the site. .
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
Sediments and soil adjacent to the landfill, scraped area, and former
lagoon area are contaminated with heavy metals and PAHs from surface
runoff. Potential health hazards include accidentally ingesting or touching
contaminants.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
7
continued
-------
ORDNANCE WORKS DISPOSAL AREAS
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term
remedial phases focusing on (1) the landfill, scraped area, and former lagoon sections
of the site and (2) the industrial complex areas. ,
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1984, to alleviate the immediate threat at a portion
of the site, the current owner removed drums containing polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) to a secure storage area within the site. They were later
disposed of in an approved facility.
Landfill/Scraped Area/Former Lagoons: In 1989, the EPA selected the
following remedies for site cleanup at these areas: (1) consolidating the
existing landfill waste and covering it with a multi-layer cap to keep rainfall
, , and runoff from spreading contaminants; (2) bioremediation of the former
lagoons scraped area soil, and contaminated stream sediments; (3) controlling drainage
and sedimentation on the surface in the landfill area; and (4) conducting post-treatment
air monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the cleanup. Engineering design is
scheduled to begin in 1990. Final cleanup is scheduled for completion in 1995.
Industrial Complex Areas: The EPA proposes to conduct a study to
determine the nature and extent of contamination and to identify
alternatives for cleanup at the industrial complex areas in the northern
portion of the site. The study is scheduled to begin in 1990.
Environmental Progress
The removal of drums containing PCBs has eliminated immediate threats to the
surroundings'at Ordnance Works Disposal Areas while the EPA completes intensive
studies and begins the final cleanup actions at the site.
-------
WEST VIRGINIA
ORDNANCE
WEST VIRGINIA
EPA ID# WVD98071303
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Mason County
miles north of Point Pleasant on the eastern
bank of the Ohio River
Aliases:
McClintic Wildlife Refuge Station
West Virginia Ordnance Works
Site Description
From 1942 to 1945, the Army produced TNT (trinitrotoluene) at West Virginia Ordnance,
a 8,320-acre site. Soils around the operation's industrial area, process facilities, and
industrial wastewater disposal system were contaminated with the TNT explosive and
its by-products, and asbestos. When the site was decontaminated and
decommissioned In 1945, the Army deeded the industrial portion to West Virginia,
stipulating that it be used for wildlife management. The State created the McClintic
State Wildlife Station on 2,785 acres, and the area is now used for public hunting,
fishing, camping, and day recreational use. Other non-industrial portions of the original
parcel are now owned by the County or by private citizens. In 1989, redwater seepage
(liquid waste produced during the TNT manufacturing process) was observed near Pond
13 on the wildlife station. EPA and State investigations revealed that the groundwater
and surface water were contaminated with explosive nitroaromatics. Buried lines
associated with TNT manufacture contained some crystalline TNT. The ground was
littered with residues and chunks of nitroaromatic compounds. About 11,000 people
visit the McClintic Wildlife Station each year. Surrounding areas include residential
communities, the West Virginia University (WVU) Experimental Station, Mason County
Airport, National Guard facilities, the county fairgrounds, cropland, pastures, and
forests.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/01/83
L\
March 1990
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, seepage, soils, and the surface water on site are
contaminated with explosive nitroaromatic compounds including TNT,
trinitrobenzene, and dinitrotoluene from former site operations. Visitors to
the wildlife refuge may be exposed to contaminants by touching or
accidentally ingesting contaminated surface water or soils. The shallow
groundwater has been shown to be contaminated and is moving toward
nearby private residences with wells. No nitroaromatics have been
detected in any of the 13 local water supply wells, but sewer lines and
open manholes contain reactive wastes, which may pose a safety and
chemical hazard to people entering them. The site is a wildlife refuge.
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
-------
WEST VIRGINIA ORDNANCE
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on source
control and groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Source Control: The EPA and the Army decided in 1985 that cleanup work
should be conducted in two separate phases: one tackled the sources of
contamination, and the other the groundwater pollution. The remedy
- i ' selected for source control is: (1) in-place flaming of reactive TNT residue
on soil surfaces and installation of a 2-foot soil cover over highly contaminated areas, (2)
disposal of asbestos off site, and (3) excavation of reactive sewer lines, flashing of
explosives, and backfilling of trenches from which lines are removed. Site cleanup
activities began in 1988 and are scheduled for completion in 1990.
Groundwater: The remedies selected involve three distinct areas of
contamination: (1) Yellow Water Reservoir: capping contaminated areas
and extracting and treating the groundwater; (2) Red Water Reservoir:
relocating ponds 1 and 2, filling and capping original ponds 1 and 2, and
extracting and treating the groundwater; and (3) Pond 13: capping contaminated areas
and extracting and treating the groundwater. Site cleanup activities are scheduled to
begin in 1990.
Site Facts: In 1984, the EPA concurred with the Army's request to assume
responsibility for response actions at the site. West Virginia Ordnance is participating in
the Installation Restoration Program (IRP), a specially funded Department of Defense
(DOD) program designed to investigate, identify, and control hazardous waste on
military or other DOD installations.
Environmental Progress
While the West Virginia Ordnance site is awaiting the completion of cleanup activities
begun in 1988, the EPA and the Army have evaluated site threats and have determined
that the site does not currently pose an immediate risk to health or the environment.
10
-------
This glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
fact sheets for the State of West Virginia. The terms
, and abbreviations contained in this glossary are often
defined 'in the context of hazardous waste management as de-
scribed in the site fact sheets, and apply specifically to work per-
formed under the Superfund program. Therefore, these terms
may have other meanings when used in a different context.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal and enforce-
able agreement between EPA and the parties potentially
responsible for site contamination. Under the terms of
the Order, the potentially responsibleparties agree to
perform or pay for site studies or cleanups, it also de-
scribes the oversight rules, responsibilities and enforce-
ment options that the government may exercise in the
event of non-compliance by potentially responsible parties. This Order is signed by
PRPs and the government; it does not require approval by a judge.
Alluvial: An area of sand, clay, or other similar material that has been gradually deposr
ited by moving water, such as along a river bed or the shore of a lake.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock, sand, or gravel capable of storing water within
cracks and pore spaces, or between grains. When water contained within an aquifer is
of sufficient quantity and quality, it can be tapped and used for, drinking Or other pur-
poses. The water contained in the aquifer is called ground water.
Backf Ul: To refill an excavated area with removed earth; or the material itself that is
used to refill an excavated area. : ;
Bioremediation: A cleanup process using naturally occurring or specially cultivated
microorganisms to digest contaminants naturally and break them down into nonhaz-
ardous components.
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated materials. The surface of the cap is
generally mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Consent Decree: A legal document, approved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between EPA and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the potentially responsible parties are re-
quired to perform and/or the costs incurred by the government that the parties will
G-l
-------
reimburse, as well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforcement options that the gov-
ernment may exercise in the event of non-compliance by potentially responsible parties.
If a settlement between EPA and a potentially responsible party includes cleanup ac-
tions, it must be in the form of a,consent decree. A consent decree is subject to a public
comment period.
Decommission: To revoke a license to operate and take put of service.
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other
barrier. ;
Installation Restoration Program: The specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has been identifying and evaluating its hazard-
ous waste sites and controlling the migration of hazardous contaminants from those
sites.
Intake: The source where a water supply is drawn from, such as from a river or water-
bed.
Lagoon: A shallow pond where sunlight, bacterial action, and oxygen work to purify
wastewater. Lagoons are typically used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges, liquid
wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
Landfarm: To apply waste to land and/or incorporate waste into the surface soil, such
as fertilizer or soil conditioner. This practice is commonly used for disposal of com-
posted wastes.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often incremental, steps that are taken to solve
site pollution problems. Depending on the complexity, site cleanup activities can be
separated into a number of these phases.
Nitroaromatics: Common component of explosive materials, which will explode if
activated by very high temperatures or pressures; 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) is a ni-
troaromatic.
Phenols: Organic compounds that are used in plastics manufacturing and are by-
products of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye, and resin manufacturing. Phenols
are highly poisonous and can make water taste and smell bad.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): PAHs,
such as pyrene, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds found in motor oil.
They are a common component of creosotes and can cause cancer.
G-2
-------
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications, carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope emersion oils, and'caulking compounds. PCBs are also produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are extremely persistent in the environment be-
cause they are very stable, non-reactive, and highly heat resistant. Burning them pro-
duces even more toxins. Chronic exposure to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
is also known to bioaccumulate in fatty tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in 1979
with the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs): Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Superfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs until they admit liability or a court makes
a determination of liability. This means that PRPs may sign a consent decree or admin-
istrative order on consent [see Administrative Order on Consent] to participate in site
cleanup activity without admitting liability.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land into receiving waters.
Sediment: The layer of soil, sand and minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such as
streams, lakes, and rivers that absorb contaminants.
Seeps: Specific points where releases of liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower edges of landfills.
Seepage Pits: A hole, shaft, or cavity in the ground used for storage of liquids, usually
in the form of leachate, from waste disposal areas. The liquid gradually leaves the pit
by moving through the surrounding soil.
Stabilization: The process of changing an active substance into inert, harmless mate-
rial, or physical activities at a site that act to limit the further spread of contamination
without actual reduction of toxicity. . :
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): VOCs are made as secondary petrochemicals.
They include light alcohols, acetone, tricmqroethylene, perchloroethylene, dichloroeth-
ylene, benzene, vinyl chloride, toluene, and methylene chloride. These potentially toxic
chemicals are used as solvents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels. Because of their
volatile nature, they readily evaporate into the air, increasing the potential exposure to
humans. Due to their low water solubility, environmental persistence, and widespread
industrial use, they are commonly found in soil and groundwater.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a stream or other water body.
G-3
-------
------- |